I wonder who is going to get the blame for what the Daily Rant are calling a "cover-up" over Chilcott?
Is there any danger for the Tories / Cameron here?
I don't think so.
What the fun thing would be, if it were leaked during the election campaign.
Er! Yes, it would, given the support that Cameron gave to the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns.
It would have been disastrous to him to have been critical of the republican POTUS at that time. Rupert M. would have made so much fun of him on Faux News
Harmans banging on about UKIP being sexist.. so lefty & feminist it's like reading comments from the Tories on this site!
Interesting ideas about UKIP sexual technique from her though.. is there something overtly chauvinistic about people who take sex backwards?
"Ukip is a party led by 'Neanderthal sexists', blasts Harman: Feminist Labour deputy leader says women should 'beware' of the party in provocative attack
Criticised senior Ukip women, saying party wanted to take sex 'backwards'
Paddy Power have changed their Greens vote share line. Over 5.5% 5/6 Under 5.5% 5/6
Clearly largely dependent on the number of candidates they field. Currently I'd favour the <5.5% option. Should they score >6.5% they are going to damage Labour significantly in any number of marginals.
"Tonight Nicola Sturgeon has said her SNP MPs would be willing to vote on English only issues if she thinks it affects Scotland."
Should that prove to be the case then that will prove to be the end of the Union as we know it and will inevitably lead to the onset of an English Parliament to replace Westminster.
It's amazing how we managed to survive English MPs voting on Scotish matters for 300 years.
Further, my chief criticism of Cameron and the modernisers is that they were (are) a social homogenous and urbane group, centred on London, with their politics driven by the attitudes of their contemporaries and reverence of Blair.
They drew the wrong conclusions. They felt they had to shed the Right and become a more left-wing party, and attract the soft Guardianista left, to win. They did that by trying to increase the gender, sexual and racial diversity of Conservatives candidates, who tended to still be well-off and from similar social backgrounds, and by positioning on the Environment. However, they didn't actually address any of the underlying cultural problems of the Conservative party.
What strategy they did have depended on those on the Right being disappointed having nowhere else to go. In reality, they lost the Right, whilst the voter group on the centre-left was never numerous enough to make a national difference, nor were they going to vote Tory anyway. Also they failed to understand they could not longer centrally control and manage a tight media message in the noughties in the same way Blair had done in the nineties.
What Cameron should have done instead is tackle the root and branch culture of the Conservative party from Day One. Fundamentally reformed party structures - and not blame it on the oldie blue-rise members in the Shire constituencies. Appointed a *socially diverse* cabinet, from all wings of the party, not just from his social group and political friends. Open primaries, referenda, public consultations everywhere. Huge central subsided funding of poorer prospective parliamentary candidates from modest backgrounds. Cheap £1 membership. More regional accents. Less snobbery. More targeted working class candidacies. Encouraged diversity of opinion. Independent individual thought. Kept the popular policies on immigration and europe, but also balanced it up with an equal interest in public services.
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
Oh, one last point, Sturgeon will not be invited to the TV chatalong, she is not, will ever be an MP at Westminster. She can the never be a potential PM. Salmond is not an MP, again he cannot be a PM, mind you all the other debaters would be able to make a poond o'mince of him.
Stand up to the front, Stewart Hosie. cough, cough.
Yawn, Casino Royale. Sorry but that was even more dull than Wolf Hall.
It won't come down to whether or not he irritated you over gay marriage. It'll be down to management of the economy. And on that they've done a good job.
The lead story of tomorrow BBC...outrage at the return of Page 3 in the Sun. Murdoch....yadda yadda yadda, now to Harriet Harman for her opinion.
I did think it interesting the Sun basically said no comment when this was the ludicrous top story of the day.
I am wondering if the Sun might just just done a massive setup job on the media, probably started by sending out somebody to have a quiet drink with a known loudmouth from a sister newspaper.
The more I think about it, the better an Empty chair is for Cameron. Let the minnows squabble whilst Dave governs in the interests of the people.. No wonder tim tried to get to Lynton Crosby with some very personal attacks.
The empty chair is even better than that. Neutrality laws mean CCHQ would be on the phone to the BBC first thing next morning demanding equal time for their man -- without the distraction of the other leaders.
@ScottyNational: FM denies breaking SNP principles by voting on English laws: 'The principles can still be read on the original elastic they were written on'
The more I think about it, the better an Empty chair is for Cameron. Let the minnows squabble whilst Dave governs in the interests of the people.. No wonder tim tried to get to Lynton Crosby with some very personal attacks.
The empty chair is even better than that. Neutrality laws mean CCHQ would be on the phone to the BBC first thing next morning demanding equal time for their man -- without the distraction of the other leaders.
And maybe that is the idea.
I don't think so... as long as they have offered all parties the opportunity to share the air time they have fulfilled their obligations as far as equality goes
On the subject of the GE though, I had always been somewhat skeptical of the idea that even at the start of 2015 there were people who were not only not interested in politics, which is normal, but actually unaware a GE was to take place very shortly, but in discussion with a relative today I discovered there is at least one person who had no idea a GE was coming up. Now I guess I must try to consider how many others of a similar mind are out there. Granted, they are someone who has never voted before and insists they will not this time either, but there's probably some people out there who would vote despite still not realizing there was a vote coming.
On the SNP move, entirely unsurprising, if their votes could swing the conclusion of an issue of course they would revise their approach somewhat. It's permissible and only been their restraint that has prevent that sort of thing before, it was inevitable the time would come when tactically that would change.
Didn't the Sun give Savile a "day out" with some page 3 girls a couple of years before his death? I remember reading the article when the story broke before the paywall went up, though they've almost certainly taken it down now anyway.
Yawn, Casino Royale. Sorry but that was even more dull than Wolf Hall.
It won't come down to whether or not he irritated you over gay marriage. It'll be down to management of the economy. And on that they've done a good job.
Ukip are on the slide.
Sorry, once you get us non-Cameron fans started on gay marriage, we just can't stop.
All the blame should lie with Lord Arran; legalising homosexual intercourse was the biggest mistake of the last century. We never should have repealed the Buggery Act of 1533.
The more I think about it, the better an Empty chair is for Cameron. Let the minnows squabble whilst Dave governs in the interests of the people.. No wonder tim tried to get to Lynton Crosby with some very personal attacks.
The empty chair is even better than that. Neutrality laws mean CCHQ would be on the phone to the BBC first thing next morning demanding equal time for their man -- without the distraction of the other leaders.
And maybe that is the idea.
I don't think so... as long as they have offered all parties the opportunity to share the air time they have fulfilled their obligations as far as equality goes
I would hope so, otherwise those are some absurd rules (not that we lack for such things). If someone from CCHQ demanded equal time for their man the BBC and others could justifiably state they gave him that and he turned it down of his own volition, and politely tell them to bugger off.
Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
We really need to clamp down on campaign finance. It's not right that single individuals can have so much influence.
Do you feel the same about Sykes bankrolling UKIP? And the cash Wheeler gave them?
What about the Hedge Funds and others paying into the Tories via underground ways?
Socrates was the one complaining. I wondered how he felt about his own party being bankrolled by squillionaires.
You're OK with Labour cooking up back room deals with their rich Union backers?
Ok, so lets start looking at the River Funds back in the 1950's which were devised to fund the Tories without the Inland Revenue being "involved". What about the organisations set up in the '60's to 80's where employer blacklists were run to supply funds to the Tories.
Not happy with that? Well there are plenty of examples up to the present day.
One thing you cannot argue about, is that the Labour party provide is clear and clean accounts of funding, due to the fact that the right wing media is trying to find problems.
I look forward to the day that Gideon does the same.
Further, my chief criticism of Cameron and the modernisers is that they were (are) a social homogenous and urbane group, centred on London, with their politics driven by the attitudes of their contemporaries and reverence of Blair.
They drew the wrong conclusions. They felt they had to shed the Right and become a more left-wing party, and attract the soft Guardianista left, to win. They did that by trying to increase the gender, sexual and racial diversity of Conservatives candidates, who tended to still be well-off and from similar social backgrounds, and by positioning on the Environment. However, they didn't actually address any of the underlying cultural problems of the Conservative party.
What strategy they did have depended on those on the Right being disappointed having nowhere else to go. In reality, they lost the Right, whilst the voter group on the centre-left was never numerous enough to make a national difference, nor were they going to vote Tory anyway. Also they failed to understand they could not longer centrally control and manage a tight media message in the noughties in the same way Blair had done in the nineties.
What Cameron should have done instead is tackle the root and branch culture of the Conservative party from Day One. Fundamentally reformed party structures - and not blame it on the oldie blue-rise members in the Shire constituencies. Appointed a *socially diverse* cabinet, from all wings of the party, not just from his social group and political friends. Open primaries, referenda, public consultations everywhere. Huge central subsided funding of poorer prospective parliamentary candidates from modest backgrounds. Cheap £1 membership. More regional accents. Less snobbery. More targeted working class candidacies. Encouraged diversity of opinion. Independent individual thought. Kept the popular policies on immigration and europe, but also balanced it up with an equal interest in public services.
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
What the party needed was William Hague in 97 and IDS in 2004. How could that have possibly gone wrong?
(Notable too that both of these were core members of Camerons cabinet)
@Edin_Rokz Smaller scale, but I particularly liked the raffle for a chance to play tennis with Dave and partner. I believe the high bidder was the "friend" of a Russian oligarch?
Its late and I have just looked in. But what is Mr Smithson talking about, the one debate with Farage and the censorship of the Greens? Or ALL debates with the other two? The first one I suspect will not go ahead without the greens and Labour probably now themselves thing exposing the Greens to scrutiny might not be a bad idea.
Debates are rubbish and do nothing prove nothing other than encourage everything that people criticise politicians for. Just how clever were all the people who thought 'clagg' was a good idea?Why is there the need to 'debate' anything? Politicians and their parties have theor policies and can spread them. Televising parliament is bad enough. There is a need of course for the TV companies to promote their self esteem and I think that the BBC licence and charter are totally irrelevant. .
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay Marriage
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...
It's similar to the way that my grandmother would get worked up about sex scenes in TV drama, and tell us how disgusting they were - and always insist on watching the drama in question. We always laughed and pointed out there was a switch.
@Edin_Rokz Smaller scale, but I particularly liked the raffle for a chance to play tennis with Dave and partner. I believe the high bidder was the "friend" of a Russian oligarch?
How much do you pay to avoid playing tennis with Dave and partner?
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
What the party needed was William Hague in 97 and IDS in 2004. How could that have possibly gone wrong?
(Notable too that both of these were core members of Camerons cabinet)
Like most unrepentant modernisers, you spectacularly miss the point. That's almost always (as predictable as the sun rising in the east) the response I get.
It would be patronising, if I wasn't so bored of it by now. I didn't vote for David Davis or Liam Fox in 2005, I voted for Cameron. In fact, I was a Cameroon before Cameron. Because I thought he would get it: he didn't.
The problem with the Conservative Party is the social and economic diversity of the people in it, their backgrounds, and its acerbic culture. And, no, I don't mean the ordinary party members.
The modernisation strategy should have been focussed on that. It wasn't.
Mike is right about the odds on Cameron ducking out being worth a bet. Not for the many reasons I have heard here tonight, but for the simple reason that many of you always assume Cameron wins PMQ's. He never answers a straight question and always gets the last word. He knows any proper "chairman" would crucify him for it in a TV debate.
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay Marriage
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...
It's similar to the way that my grandmother would get worked up about sex scenes in TV drama, and tell us how disgusting they were - and always insist on watching the drama in question. We always laughed and pointed out there was a switch.
Same people buy and read the Daily Mail, work themselves up into a tizz-wazz, and then oggle the thumbnails of shame on the RHS.
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay Marriage
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...
It's similar to the way that my grandmother would get worked up about sex scenes in TV drama, and tell us how disgusting they were - and always insist on watching the drama in question. We always laughed and pointed out there was a switch.
Actually what it exposes (!) is the dogmatic, authoritarian nature of the modern Labour party, behind the mask of equality and fairness
Her argument to people who disagreed with the principle of gay marriage was "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it".. as if she was free and easy with what went on in society
... and thought she had stumbled upon a devastating reposte.
Typical smug leftie humour
Well surely the same goes for things that she disagrees with too? There is no pressure on her to appear on page 3, or to ever look at it
The article points out the similarity of Page 3 and the Burka, both different forms of the objectification of women.
A very sound point, but doesn't fit your pre-conception.
I find the argument that Page 3 facilitated Savile's crimes unconvincing. Every era has had its child rapists.
And of course a lot of Saville's activities pre-dated the start of Page 3 in 1970. Despite the headline, Saville was only a peripheral part of of Steadmans article.
So Page 3 revives zombie-like to walk amongst us again for a bit. Its days are numbered though. The curiously unsexy glamour models are obsolete in the world where anyone can view much harder core items on a smartphone.
"Tonight Nicola Sturgeon has said her SNP MPs would be willing to vote on English only issues if she thinks it affects Scotland."
Should that prove to be the case then that will prove to be the end of the Union as we know it and will inevitably lead to the onset of an English Parliament to replace Westminster.
It's amazing how we managed to survive English MPs voting on Scotish matters for 300 years.
No Westminster MP can vote on Scottish devolved matters. No Scottish Westminster MP can vote on Scottish devolved matters. But they can vote on the same English matters that they cannot vote on for their constituents in Scotland.
Before devolution all MPs voted on all matters and all matters were common to all constituents. Do not argue with me but argue with the well know Scot who pointed that out. Before devolution and for good measure there were proportionately far more Scottish MPs than English MPs. It must have been heartbreaking being Scottish before devolution.
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
What the party needed was William Hague in 97 and IDS in 2004. How could that have possibly gone wrong?
(Notable too that both of these were core members of Camerons cabinet)
Like most unrepentant modernisers, you spectacularly miss the point. That's almost always (as predictable as the sun rising in the east) the response I get.
It would be patronising, if I wasn't so bored of it by now. I didn't vote for David Davis or Liam Fox in 2005, I voted for Cameron. In fact, I was a Cameroon before Cameron. Because I thought he would get it: he didn't.
The problem with the Conservative Party is the social and economic diversity of the people in it, their backgrounds, and its acerbic culture. And, no, I don't mean the ordinary party members.
The modernisation strategy should have been focussed on that. It wasn't.
I am not a moderniser Tory, I am not a Tory at all, and would not be bothered if the party collapsed into an Eton Mess.
All parties pay lip service to diversity. The superficial diversity of Thornbridge or Umuna is much the same as the public school boys at the heart of UKIP. It's just PR and preferment of court favourites. Nothing new there.
The article points out the similarity of Page 3 and the Burka, both different forms of the objectification of women.
A very sound point, but doesn't fit your pre-conception.
I find the argument that Page 3 facilitated Savile's crimes unconvincing. Every era has had its child rapists.
And of course a lot of Saville's activities pre-dated the start of Page 3 in 1970. Despite the headline, Saville was only a peripheral part of of Steadmans article.
So Page 3 revives zombie-like to walk amongst us again for a bit. Its days are numbered though. The curiously unsexy glamour models are obsolete in the world where anyone can view much harder core items on a smartphone.
As it happens, I agree with the last part. It's the same reason why efforts to revive Carry On movies don't work.
When Stella Creasy was on QT talking about Gay Marriage
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...
It's similar to the way that my grandmother would get worked up about sex scenes in TV drama, and tell us how disgusting they were - and always insist on watching the drama in question. We always laughed and pointed out there was a switch.
Actually what it exposes (!) is the dogmatic, authoritarian nature of the modern Labour party, behind the mask of equality and fairness
Her argument to people who disagreed with the principle of gay marriage was "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it".. as if she was free and easy with what went on in society
... and thought she had stumbled upon a devastating reposte.
Typical smug leftie humour
Well surely the same goes for things that she disagrees with too? There is no pressure on her to appear on page 3, or to ever look at it
But that doesn't seem to be the case...
Islamists and left wing Labour women both go to a lot of trouble to be offended.
Lord Oakeshott is donating £300,000 to Labour candidates in marginal seats.
We really need to clamp down on campaign finance. It's not right that single individuals can have so much influence.
Do you feel the same about Sykes bankrolling UKIP? And the cash Wheeler gave them?
What about the Hedge Funds and others paying into the Tories via underground ways?
I do not give a damn about anybody paying to anybody (its a free country and we all like free speech don't we?) but I do object to a cheerleader for a party that relies on two donors who peddle their influence for their money complaining about someone else doing the same.
So Page 3 revives zombie-like to walk amongst us again for a bit. Its days are numbered though. The curiously unsexy glamour models are obsolete in the world where anyone can view much harder core items on a smartphone.
and sadly the daily mail online does the same job only much more nastily. At least the Sun is objectifying without criticising the models. daily mail objectifies and passes judgement - x looks good for 40; y looks rough for 24...
I'm not going to find examples for you, you've all seen them.
To be clear, this isn't Tokyo suburbs or anything. Basically it's Tokyo plus all the adjoining prefectures to Tokyo - a lot of that area is deep in the mountains.
In other news the New England Patriots have been caught cheating again.
I was shocked to find out that each team gets their own set of balls, are left to look after them for several hours before kick-off and there is a certain amount of tampering allowed within the rules, such using sandpaper and placing them in the oven.
Imagine if you gave two cricket teams the balls they are going to bowl with for the forthcoming innings for 2-3hrs before the match and said now don't do anything naughty...
If you want to have an ad during the Super Bowl in 10 days, a 30 second spot will cost you $4.5 million. The ads are already starting to be 'previewed'. They're usually pretty good and made specifically for the game.
Looks like Ebola is finally in decline. Total cases in the 3 affected countries this week were only 155 (compared to 600-700 a week not so long ago) and Liberia only had 8 cases.
Mike is right about the odds on Cameron ducking out being worth a bet. Not for the many reasons I have heard here tonight, but for the simple reason that many of you always assume Cameron wins PMQ's. He never answers a straight question and always gets the last word. He knows any proper "chairman" would crucify him for it in a TV debate.
The Chairman doesn't make any comments in the TV debates.
I'm puzzled by this - won't they be spending right up to the legal limit in every marginal constituency anyway?
I know they have less money than the Conservatives nationally and I can understand they wouldn't spend so much in safe or no hope seats. But surely in key marginals they would be spending right up to the limit anyway?
FPT @ Jane Ellison - unfortunately, for too many Conservative modernisers, their thinking didn't go much further than, "We need to be more like Blair".
They failed to diagnose that it's a different party, with different problems, in a different time, that required different solutions.
TBF the schedule required David Cameron to be designed in 2005 and pushed out to consumers in 2006/2007. They couldn't reasonably have predicted how the Lehman Shock and its aftermath would knock their strategy on its arse.
That's not quite my point. The New Labour "project" was predicated on the fact that Labour had lost four elections in a row due to its perceived vested interests, anti-aspiration sentiment and left-wing policy, leading to a split centre-left vote.
That diagnosis was basically correct: it was essentially a policy problem. Blair correctly understood he needed to distance himself from the unions, shed the left-wing dogma, be visibly seen pro-aspiration, run a very tight media operation, and prepare for a reconciliation with the Liberal Democrats. Very successful in winning middle-England, even if disillusionment set in fast. But that's another story.
In the Tories case, the problem was (is) different. It's mainly a brand problem. Much of its policy on immigration, europe, crime and putting Britain first in foreign affairs remained popular. There *was* a policy problem with the public services - that the Tories didn't care about the NHS, or Education, for instance - and that bit the modernisers got correct.
However, that can be linked to the main problem. Which is the perceived motives, attitudes and behaviour of the Conservative party itself. The perception it was self-interested, elitist, contemptuous of others, disloyal internally, out-of-touch and only interested in the wealthy.
The behaviour of too many of its MPs was simply appalling. They reeked of entitlement, pomposity and arrogance, and, far too often, moral hypocrisy as well. It didn't help that they could also be downright bastards too.
Every cr@phead who was ever a tory is now peddling Kippersense. How does that square with them polling 15% ?
@MikeL Not answering the question,but diving off at a tangent wouldn't work in a TV studio without the orchestrated braying in the background. Even if the "chair" didn't intervene?
@MikeL Not answering the question,but diving off at a tangent wouldn't work in a TV studio without the orchestrated braying in the background. Even if the "chair" didn't intervene?
The braying is normally from Laboùr MPs when Cameron is talking. Perhaps they can sit in the audience.
@TheWatcher And the Tories remain respectfully restrained while Ed asks the (unanswered) questions? You don't listen to PMQ's much do you? All sides do it, and it makes a mockery of Parliament.....but it is tradition?
In other news the New England Patriots have been caught cheating again.
I was shocked to find out that each team gets their own set of balls, are left to look after them for several hours before kick-off and there is a certain amount of tampering allowed within the rules, such using sandpaper and placing them in the oven.
Imagine if you gave two cricket teams the balls they are going to bowl with for the forthcoming innings for 2-3hrs before the match and said now don't do anything naughty...
Each team must supply 12 balls two hours 15 minutes before the game, and the referee (in this case Walt Anderson) checks they are between 12.5- 13.5 psi, and puts a stamp on each ball.
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
The exception to this is the Super Bowl, where every play uses a new ball.
New England has form , with 'spygate' and being caught several years ago filming their Super Bowl opponents practices from an apartment several blocks away.
@TheWatcher And the Tories remain respectfully restrained while Ed asks the (unanswered) questions? You don't listen to PMQ's much do you? All sides do it, and it makes a mockery of Parliament.....but it is tradition?
You were specifically referring to Cameron, hence my response.
As for PMQs, it's more fun with the sound turned off. One can better appreciate Miliband's gurning in silence.
In other news the New England Patriots have been caught cheating again.
I was shocked to find out that each team gets their own set of balls, are left to look after them for several hours before kick-off and there is a certain amount of tampering allowed within the rules, such using sandpaper and placing them in the oven.
Imagine if you gave two cricket teams the balls they are going to bowl with for the forthcoming innings for 2-3hrs before the match and said now don't do anything naughty...
Each team must supply 12 balls two hours 15 minutes before the game, and the referee (in this case Walt Anderson) checks they are between 12.5- 13.5 psi, and puts a stamp on each ball.
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
The exception to this is the Super Bowl, where every play uses a new ball.
New England has form , with 'spygate' and being caught several years ago filming their Super Bowl opponents practices from an apartment several blocks away.
I don't really understand why the refs wouldn't provide and look after the balls. In cricket the umpires do, in football the same etc.
And they have many refs in the NFL plus the chain game, you would think between them it would be easy to keep the supply of balls going etc, without any team having their own set.
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
excuse my ignorance- how would deflated balls help the Patriots?
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
excuse my ignorance- how would deflated balls help the Patriots?
In wet and cold conditions it makes it easier to grip when throwing and also when catching it is just that bit softer.
Comments
A very sound point, but doesn't fit your pre-conception.
"It's the age we live in.."
Do you mean from the stone age onward?
It would have been disastrous to him to have been critical of the republican POTUS at that time. Rupert M. would have made so much fun of him on Faux News
Swingover
Crossback
They drew the wrong conclusions. They felt they had to shed the Right and become a more left-wing party, and attract the soft Guardianista left, to win. They did that by trying to increase the gender, sexual and racial diversity of Conservatives candidates, who tended to still be well-off and from similar social backgrounds, and by positioning on the Environment. However, they didn't actually address any of the underlying cultural problems of the Conservative party.
What strategy they did have depended on those on the Right being disappointed having nowhere else to go. In reality, they lost the Right, whilst the voter group on the centre-left was never numerous enough to make a national difference, nor were they going to vote Tory anyway. Also they failed to understand they could not longer centrally control and manage a tight media message in the noughties in the same way Blair had done in the nineties.
What Cameron should have done instead is tackle the root and branch culture of the Conservative party from Day One. Fundamentally reformed party structures - and not blame it on the oldie blue-rise members in the Shire constituencies. Appointed a *socially diverse* cabinet, from all wings of the party, not just from his social group and political friends. Open primaries, referenda, public consultations everywhere. Huge central subsided funding of poorer prospective parliamentary candidates from modest backgrounds. Cheap £1 membership. More regional accents. Less snobbery. More targeted working class candidacies. Encouraged diversity of opinion. Independent individual thought. Kept the popular policies on immigration and europe, but also balanced it up with an equal interest in public services.
Essentially, showing his party reflected the British people, and that it was on the side of the ordinary working person. In this he failed.
Stand up to the front, Stewart Hosie. cough, cough.
Tits out the lot!
It won't come down to whether or not he irritated you over gay marriage. It'll be down to management of the economy. And on that they've done a good job.
Ukip are on the slide.
"Clarifications & Corrections"
The Sun @TheSunNewspaper · 13m13 minutes ago
Tomorrow's #Page3... pic.twitter.com/pzyZ7Qhe9N
I did think it interesting the Sun basically said no comment when this was the ludicrous top story of the day.
I am wondering if the Sun might just just done a massive setup job on the media, probably started by sending out somebody to have a quiet drink with a known loudmouth from a sister newspaper.
And maybe that is the idea.
You're OK with Labour cooking up back room deals with their rich Union backers?
She should be more like "cast iron Dave"?
On the subject of the GE though, I had always been somewhat skeptical of the idea that even at the start of 2015 there were people who were not only not interested in politics, which is normal, but actually unaware a GE was to take place very shortly, but in discussion with a relative today I discovered there is at least one person who had no idea a GE was coming up. Now I guess I must try to consider how many others of a similar mind are out there. Granted, they are someone who has never voted before and insists they will not this time either, but there's probably some people out there who would vote despite still not realizing there was a vote coming.
On the SNP move, entirely unsurprising, if their votes could swing the conclusion of an issue of course they would revise their approach somewhat. It's permissible and only been their restraint that has prevent that sort of thing before, it was inevitable the time would come when tactically that would change.
https://twitter.com/stellacreasy/status/558037728093569025
All the blame should lie with Lord Arran; legalising homosexual intercourse was the biggest mistake of the last century. We never should have repealed the Buggery Act of 1533.
Not happy with that? Well there are plenty of examples up to the present day.
One thing you cannot argue about, is that the Labour party provide is clear and clean accounts of funding, due to the fact that the right wing media is trying to find problems.
I look forward to the day that Gideon does the same.
(Notable too that both of these were core members of Camerons cabinet)
"If you don't like it... don't marry a man!!!"
Oh how we laughed!
Well, Nelson dearest, if you don't like page 3...
Smaller scale, but I particularly liked the raffle for a chance to play tennis with Dave and partner.
I believe the high bidder was the "friend" of a Russian oligarch?
Debates are rubbish and do nothing prove nothing other than encourage everything that people criticise politicians for. Just how clever were all the people who thought 'clagg' was a good idea?Why is there the need to 'debate' anything? Politicians and their parties have theor policies and can spread them. Televising parliament is bad enough.
There is a need of course for the TV companies to promote their self esteem and I think that the BBC licence and charter are totally irrelevant. .
Exactly the point Dave made on video several times before the last election!.....
Or possibly not?
It would be patronising, if I wasn't so bored of it by now. I didn't vote for David Davis or Liam Fox in 2005, I voted for Cameron. In fact, I was a Cameroon before Cameron. Because I thought he would get it: he didn't.
The problem with the Conservative Party is the social and economic diversity of the people in it, their backgrounds, and its acerbic culture. And, no, I don't mean the ordinary party members.
The modernisation strategy should have been focussed on that. It wasn't.
Not for the many reasons I have heard here tonight, but for the simple reason that many of you always assume Cameron wins PMQ's.
He never answers a straight question and always gets the last word.
He knows any proper "chairman" would crucify him for it in a TV debate.
Her argument to people who disagreed with the principle of gay marriage was "if you don't like it, you don't have to do it".. as if she was free and easy with what went on in society
... and thought she had stumbled upon a devastating reposte.
Typical smug leftie humour
Well surely the same goes for things that she disagrees with too? There is no pressure on her to appear on page 3, or to ever look at it
But that doesn't seem to be the case...
So Page 3 revives zombie-like to walk amongst us again for a bit. Its days are numbered though. The curiously unsexy glamour models are obsolete in the world where anyone can view much harder core items on a smartphone.
No Scottish Westminster MP can vote on Scottish devolved matters. But they can vote on the same English matters that they cannot vote on for their constituents in Scotland.
Before devolution all MPs voted on all matters and all matters were common to all constituents. Do not argue with me but argue with the well know Scot who pointed that out.
Before devolution and for good measure there were proportionately far more Scottish MPs than English MPs.
It must have been heartbreaking being Scottish before devolution.
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole · 11m11 minutes ago
Another Labour social media success. Agree? Retweet pic.twitter.com/GQChPdUC8e
Squash would be far more fun? A trip to the local "heart attack alley"* would be great TV?
* (it's the name given to the squash courts by the sports attendants here)
All parties pay lip service to diversity. The superficial diversity of Thornbridge or Umuna is much the same as the public school boys at the heart of UKIP. It's just PR and preferment of court favourites. Nothing new there.
http://i.imgur.com/21vn60I.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Eqfme.jpg
Mike said "Are we seeing “shy unionists” like shy IndyRef NO voters?"
Only problem with that theory is that MORI recorded some of the strongest support for No and weakest for Yes.
And I don't get what the theory is about non-Scottish interviewers being used? What does that mean?
http://vote-2012.proboards.com/post/218509/thread
I'm not going to find examples for you, you've all seen them.
Imagine if you gave two cricket teams the balls they are going to bowl with for the forthcoming innings for 2-3hrs before the match and said now don't do anything naughty...
Looks like Ebola is finally in decline. Total cases in the 3 affected countries this week were only 155 (compared to 600-700 a week not so long ago) and Liberia only had 8 cases.
I know they have less money than the Conservatives nationally and I can understand they wouldn't spend so much in safe or no hope seats. But surely in key marginals they would be spending right up to the limit anyway?
Not answering the question,but diving off at a tangent wouldn't work in a TV studio without the orchestrated braying in the background. Even if the "chair" didn't intervene?
The CQC were accused of being unfair as Hitchinbrooke had recently won an award:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Quality-Hinchingbrooke-Hospitals-care-isbest-country/story-22368467-detail/story.html
but the awarders of the award were CHKS, which is part of Capita:
http://www.capita-its.co.uk/media/pages/capita-acquires-chks.aspx
and Capita are partners of Circle in bidding for NHS contracts:
http://m.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4208750-f9ca-11e2-b8ef-00144feabdc0.html
I look forward to the Daily Mail following up its attempt at trashing the CQC by showcasing how the private sector companies give these awards.
That is the power of Google, anyone can join the dots now...
And the Tories remain respectfully restrained while Ed asks the (unanswered) questions?
You don't listen to PMQ's much do you?
All sides do it, and it makes a mockery of Parliament.....but it is tradition?
On Sunday the balls were checked at half time and 11 of the 12 Patriot balls were 2 psi low. The reason for the half time check was a game between the Colts and Patriots in November, when the Colts suspected some NE balls were deflated.
The exception to this is the Super Bowl, where every play uses a new ball.
New England has form , with 'spygate' and being caught several years ago filming their Super Bowl opponents practices from an apartment several blocks away.
As for PMQs, it's more fun with the sound turned off. One can better appreciate Miliband's gurning in silence.
And they have many refs in the NFL plus the chain game, you would think between them it would be easy to keep the supply of balls going etc, without any team having their own set.
Dave like many PM's before him evades the questions, but in his case, he is possibly surpassing even Blair.
What on earth are you talking about? Salmond hammered Darling in the referendum debate and Darling is a better debate than Cameron or Milliband.
'course in Japan, everyone believes its potatoes, not legumes that cause odoriferous emissions